Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1887-05-05
UoURrs oF kRNr oouNrY.
tocattnusd from fret page,

nAANtA tAA3 0NkAoAk99 9MbNgA nUHt Dc A6~
mitted. u they had traversed any
authority then II Ia out. he did not in
tend TO devote any time 10 laws prohibi-
tory IL the view the plaintiff takes Is
sustained that part OF the question Ia not
very important one and Il ID
mot q settled one by any meana. In
. State which permitted policy holder
to recover from q company il should
permit the company 10 recover q pre-
MUM, II could mot deny this right and il
II could permit them to recover the com
psny could recover the assessment. The
plaintiff must recover notwithstanding.
,rhe State has no right to make such pro-
hibitory legislation. II Ia not legislation
against case Of great public morals. 1t
10 10 protect the community against bogus
insurance compAnies. do not argue
that an artificial corporation can
have no existence outside Of the
State OF its creation. He cited authori.
ties 10 show that q corporation carried
its authority with 1t. His company, the
gentleman commended, had complied with
the requirements Of the law. That they
had the amount Of surplus required and
that the certificate had been Issued and
they had right 10 invoke its pro-
tection. This certificate Is made EVIL
denoe and II is evidence OF everything IL
contains. In every case cited by the de-
fendants counsel, where the recovery of
assessments was denied, was where the
company had not complied with the re.
quirements Of the law. He commended
that the certificate had retrospective
effect, II went back TO the first of July
and the court could not go back on il.
Mr.. Fulton offered suggestion that
the insurance commissioners certificate
was under seal and that was evidence
that they had complied with the law.
Court adjourned at O'Clock.
aa
Down, May 3.--Immediateiy upon the
assembling Of the court Mr.. Fulton
asked for q non-suit, but the court was
not inclined to grant this. Mr.. Massey,
however, before the motion was granted,
asked that the decision of the court in the
question raised be read. The opinion
was read and was adverse TO the company.
Additional interest Is attached to II from
the fact that II disposes of nearly one
half OF the cases and discontinuance will
be entered In them.
The opinion of the court recites that
"the corporation plaintiff has offered 10
put In evidence three several applications
made by the defendants TO the plaintiff
for insurance, and also three several pre-.
MUM notes given by defendants to the
plaintiff for three several policies Of in.
suranoe on property Of defendants situ.
Ated within this State, given by the
plaintiff when, as the plaintiff alleges in
It's narr as amended at the trial Of this
cause, the said plaintiff was lawfully
authorized to transact business within the
limits of this State.
The defendants have objected TO the
admission OF said applications and notes
In evidence In this cause on the ground
that these show on their face that the in
surance business to which they relate wal
transacted during a time when, In fact
said plaintiff was not lawfully authorized
10 transact any insurance business within
this State, and, therefore that said apph
cation and notes, II so admitted, woult
be evidence, not Of lawful, but Of al
unlawful insurance transacted within ihi
State.
The certificate issued by the insurance
commissioner of the State TO the plaintiff
already put in evidence, bears dat
November 2Sth, 1879, and among othe
things, shows its aBent In Delaware u
be L. p. Buck 4 Co., residing at vii
mington in this State.
The said applications and notes Of
their face show that they were made prio
10 the date of said certificate, and Of VII
mington, and that the defendants, as wel
as the plaintiffs said agent, throug
whom the entire transaction appeers
A.. aHaaAaA all waptdad a fha tim
In Delaware while the notes import this
they were givon in consideration of th
receipt of the said policies on the PROF
eFty in Delaware described in said appli
cation.
The objection made by defendants
the admissibility of the application an
notes in question raises two inquiries;
First. Was the plaintiff, at the time
the said transaction, lawfully authorize
10 transact insurance business in thi
Slater
Second. II not 80 authorized, can Ii
plaintiff recover, in this action on th
said premium notes, any of the assesi
ments sought TO be recovered by tn
suit2
In the determination Of the first il
quiry II is necessary TO consider whetht
or not, the said plaintiff being corpori
tIon created exclusively under the law
the state of Pennsylvania, could hay
lawfully transacted the said insul
anoe business within this State in case u
statute of this State had been then
force forbidding It's enjoyment OF on
comfy for that purpose unless It ha
first obtained authority therefor agTe'
ably to the provisions of such statute.
For, In fact, such statute was then
force, bearing date March Gath, 1879, an
which expressly provided that its pr
visions in that behalf should go int
effect and operation on July 1at, 1879.
Unless. therefore, the plaintiff Is alb
10 show that it had duly complied wit
the provisions of said statute 1t won
not lawfully have transacted the sa
Insurance business within this State.
The principal object of this statutN W
IN protect the citizens Of this State, WI
MIGHT seek to become holders OF insll
anee policies, against the fraudulent d
vices of spurious and insolVent COL
panies. 49,,
be an insurance department TO Dc sdmi
istered by q State insurance commission
oharoed and clothed with all the duti
and powers essential to the due fulhlme
Of the objects of the statute.
Among other things the said statu
provided that every insurance compa
doing business within this State shou!
on or before the first day OF July 10
and annually thereafter, on or before
first day of February, deliver to the
auranoe commissioner full detaii
atatement of the condition and busin
Of such company for the year ending
the previous 3Ist day Of December, VIM
statement should be verified by oath
Attenuation. and set forth the parucu
matters presented by the act. IL furtl
provided that every insurance compai
NOT oorporated under the laws OF :
State shalI, before doing any insurai
buainesa within this State, deliver 70
Insurance commissioner Q certihed 90
Of ~ charter or declaration OF organi
ton and also a certificate Of the ma
and evidence of some person or ag
within this State, upon whom sers a.'
process against such company ipAS
made. =. .h.,,
pear by such statement and report ~
ports, that such company 10 inoorpota
under the laws OF any other s.a.e !,
foreign government, and Is in good :, :
dition and has assets TO the amoun
si5O,oO over all liabilities and oia !,
then the insurance commissioner, 3
issue a certificate authorizing SAID 9,
pany TO transact business, and es'aD
agencies in this State. -;
The statute also expressly prov,
that emo insurance company OF oolp
tion shall he engaged In, proseousts,
sI 49,. ;nsnranoe business vii